Are there experiments that can be performed by serious, technically inclined amateurs—technicians, engineers, scientists in other fields, and students—to demonstrate new energy? Yes, but these experiments must be done with care, patience, and understanding. • In the area of New Hydrogen Energy Physics, Dr. Edmund Storms (Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired), a pioneer experimenter in the cold fusion field, has posted on www.lenr-canr.org a complete technical paper, “How to Produce the Fleischmann-Pons Effect.” It describes how to reliably— albeit with difficulty— produce the excess heat “Fleischmann-Pons effect” with an electrochemical cell based on heavy water. He does not in this article describe how to produce the heat-measuring calorimeter that is necessary to observe the excess heat with confidence, nor does he give details of how to make a particular cold fusion cell. Cell construction and calorimeter construction is a far larger topic, which requires its own creativity and understanding, to make sure that the noise level of the excess heat measurement is low enough to observe the excess heat with high confidence.• Dr. Randell L. Mills and S.P. Kneizys published a comprehensive pioneering paper in 1991, “Excess Heat Production by the Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte and the Implications for Cold Fusion,“ Fusion Technology, Vol.20, August 1991, pp.65-81. This paper has explicit instructions for producing excess heat in experimental apparatus with a variety of sizes. Fusion Technology can be examined at many university engineering or science libraries. NASA scientists reproduced this work and reported their positive findings in NASA Technical Memorandum 107167, February 1996. This NASA publication was reprinted in Infinite Energy, #7,pp.62-69. These references are probably the best way to begin to explore excess heat phenomenon in ordinary water solutions.• In the area of Vacuum Energy, a huge body of experiments to measure the characteristics of the aether is provided by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa on www.aetherometry.com. These experiments involve simple sheet metal boxes, called Faraday cages, accurate mercury thermometers, commercially available gold-leaf electroscopes, oscilloscopes, Tesla coils (also commercially available), and other rather simple laboratory equipment. The simplest experiment to carry out involves measuring the astounding thermal difference that can be detected between nearby air and the zone slightly above a Faraday cage surface in a darkened room. This experiment, with extensive controls, was described in detail by the Correas in “The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions,” Infinite Energy, #37, pp.12-21. A guide to other aether-measurement experiments is to be found in Eugene Mallove’s review of the Correa work posted on their site, “The Correa Science and Technology: An Appreciation.” It designates which of their downloadable monographs have hands-on experiments that can be performed.• In the area of Environmental Energy, there are some straightforward laboratory experiments, which Kenneth Rauen of New Energy Research Laboratory plans to describe in published work in 2003 or 2004 (after patenting issues are resolved). Watch this page for further notice about this publication. [Back to Top]When will the “New Energy Age” begin?In some sense it has begun already, given the quickening pace of a diverse group of technologies that are under development. The New Energy Age will accelerate dramatically as soon as a pre-production prototype New Energy device emerges that is “anointed”—unequivocally declared to be real in the judgment of a major mainstream media outlet, such as Time, Newsweek, Business Week, a major daily newspaper, or a major television network. Sad to say, it will require such media recognition before society begins to move in a big way! In the meantime, the science and technology proceeds without widespread media acclaim— apart from the occasional favorable article, which still does not declare that the particular New Energy source has been established to be real with zero doubt. Wild times will ensue when a major publication does declare a New Energy device to be indisputably real. A media frenzy of almost unparalleled magnitude will then rock the global psyche. If the Fleischmann-Pons effect had been robust and easily reproducible—it was not—the New Energy Age would have gotten into full swing in 1989. If the U.S. Department of Energy report on cold fusion in 1989 had been balanced, not a reckless rush to an unethical, negative judgment—as it most certainly was—a widely recognized scientific revolution would have occurred in the early 1990s. The New Energy Age would by now be well under way. Citizens of the world can “thank” the U.S. Department of Energy’s ERAB (Energy Research Advisory Board) report for this travesty. [Back to Top]How is New Energy R&D being funded?Given the importance and reality of New Energy, a huge amount of investment money, by right, would now be flowing into the field. It is not. By and large, potential investors and government agencies are not convinced. Therefore, the general media have not been convinced about New Energy —and ignore it or ridicule it. Money talks! And when there is little or no money in something, the media do not talk about it. It is a vicious Catch-22: insufficient R&D funding to bring about the robust new Energy devices necessary to make a breakthrough with the general media, which coverage would, in turn, prompt the funding required to develop the robust devices. Despite this terrible, illogical circumstance, exceptionally good people and groups have, indeed, invested in New Energy already. Here are some of the higher profile cases, but this is not to be taken as a comprehensive list— the funding situation is in flux: • The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) put at least $6 million into cold fusion work, mostly at SRI International, until the mid-1990s. EPRI published a final report confirming the Fleischmann-Pons discovery. EPRI is the research arm of most of the U.S. electric utility industry. Dr. Michael McKubre’s group at SRI International has continued to work on cold fusion/LENR through selected grants from advanced military research groups and from Japanese and other sources.• The patented Patterson power cell technology in the LENR area received self-funding from Dr. James Patterson and several private investors, but Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. of Sarasota, Florida fell into hard times for reasons unrelated to the validity of the basic patented technology. (A significant buy-out offer, reportedly $15 million, was tendered by Motorola in the mid-1990s, but the offer was not accepted.)• The U.S. Navy funded several cold fusion efforts at a handful of federal laboratories since 1989. In 2002, the U.S. Navy published a positive report, encouraging new research to be funded. • Several investors funded ENECO of Salt Lake City, for its LENR work, which has now been put on hold. That company has now moved into the area of patented advanced thermal energy conversion systems.• Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz, of Jet Technology in Massachusetts, has primarily self-funded his own cold fusion/LENR work — as well as a monumental effort to overcome patenting obstacles at the USPTO.• Dr. Les Case, of Fusion Power, Inc. in New Hampshire, has pioneered and self-funded one of the most impressive forms of LENR reactions, gas phase “catalytic fusion,” a process which has been confirmed at SRI International.• Privately-held BlackLight Power Corporation, of Cranbury, New Jersey, has received by far the largest investment influx from several power companies and many private investors— an estimated $10 to $30 million. There continue to be reports of an impending IPO.• Since 1987, Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa have expended some $1.2 million of their own funding into developing their patented Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGDTM) reactor technologies, which generate electrical power and drive special types of spinner electric motors.• China, France, India, Italy, Japan, and Russia each have their own way of funding New Energy research in the LENR area. Italy at present seems to have the most actively funded program. Several Italian corporations pursue active R&D programs. Similar corporate funding exists in Japan (e.g. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Advanced Technologies Center), and university professors in Japan continue to pioneer in cold fusion research. A large, mis-managed research effort was launched by Japan’s MITI government agency, the so-called “New Hydrogen Energy” (NHE) program. It was abandoned in the mid-1990s after an estimated $30 million expenditure. Though many scientists in that program continue their research, the ending of the official funding has been used in anti-cold fusion attacks.• Dr. Daniel Cavicchio and Dr. Eugene Mallove helped launch the New Energy Partners, LLC investment fund for New Energy, which did manage to raise funding for several of the struggling cold fusion companies. This NEP initiative is currently in a holding pattern.• Various philanthropic individuals, such as former heads of a few U.S. corporations, supported and in some cases continue to support Cold Fusion and other New Energy projects. Other individuals with high technology backgrounds have selectively invested in New Energy technologies, quietly and privately.• The non-profit (501c3) corporation, New Energy Foundation, Inc., was founded by Dr. Eugene Mallove and colleagues in New Hampshire in late 2002. It is intended to help fund New Energy R&D worldwide through select grants to New Energy scientists and companies. New Energy Foundation, Inc. will also help support publication efforts (such as Infinite Energy magazine) and books, New Energy conferences (such as the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion, ICCF10— Cambridge, MA, August 24-29, 2003), and other pro-active New Energy efforts. (www.infinite-energy.com).[Back to Top]What is the best way to invest in New Energy technologies?As with any other investment, first and foremost one must be properly informed. The resources of this website and links to other sites are an important good beginning. A subscription to Infinite Energy, with its careful following of New Energy R&D work, and sudden claims and counter-claims for this and that “device,” would be extremely useful (and could help avoid a mistaken investment!). The New Energy Foundation, Inc. and its New Energy Research Laboratory (NERL) stand ready to assist potential investors in determining whether a particular opportunity brought to the prospective investor’s attention by third parties has validity and other merit— not always an easy matter to determine, as we have found.If I am a student planning to be in science or engineering and would like to work in the New Energy field, what courses should I take and in what fields would it be best to major? It would be most useful for you to major in any of the basic sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, materials science) or in electrical, mechanical, or aerospace engineering. As you take your courses, be aware that your professors will, for the most part, not take kindly to questions and comments that suggest that there may be major cracks in the foundations of knowledge that they are dispensing. Learn from this! You will be observing a paradigm shift in progress. Watch what happens when you confront your professors with technical papers and news reports about New Energy. You may be amazed at their responses. There is room for all kinds of people in the New Energy field—business people, environmentalists, architects—not only scientists and technologists. If you are not yet in college, why not consider doing a school report about some aspect of New Energy? Writing skills will be needed aplenty. There will be much to write about as a new world of possibilities opens up for humankind. The field especially needs good science journalists— those who do not follow the pack-mentality that is so prevalent. [Back to Top]Who is opposing New Energy science and technology?Only fools and small-minded people would oppose research on something so wonderful—even if there were only a 10% chance that it was correct (and the true percentage is far higher —100%, in our opinion). Sad to say, there are plenty of fools arrayed against New Energy. Most of them are in academia and in government agencies charged with managing scientific research—though there are outstanding exceptions. To paraphrase and turn the tables on the enemies of New Energy in their attacks against frontier researchers, “This shows that a Ph.D. is no guarantee against foolishness.” There are plenty of science Ph.D.s and even Nobel laureates who have obscenely attacked cold fusion, vacuum energy, hydrino physics, and investigations into loopholes in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Their credentials are worthless. What they have to say on the subject of New Energy usually amounts to no more than uninformed bigotry. These people apparently believe that science has come to an end—that the broad outlines of physics and biology, as described in current texts, are on absolutely secure grounds. One of the greatest buffoons in the sad array of enemies is Robert Park of the American Physical Society and the University of Maryland, whose “What’s New” electronic column gives weekly cues to an army of incompetent “science journalists,” who then misinform other journalists, the establishment’s so-called “scientists,” and cowering government bureaucrats and politicians.Many people assume that it must be the “oil companies” who are blocking New Energy research. Not so! In our view, these large companies are fundamentally too stupid to understand what is about to hit them. Their executives all have “golden parachutes” anyway, so they do not really fear that a complete collapse of the hydrocarbon economy will hurt them individually. Moreover, a handful of people from existing energy companies have, in fact, already shown that they are prepared to jump ship and get involved in New Energy. [Back to Top]Who is ignoring New Energy science and technology?For almost 14 years now—the time since the Fleischmann-Pons announcement— we have observed a very strange phenomenon. Those who one might expect would have the greatest interest in and enthusiasm for New Energy, show no interest in it at all — in fact provably (it has been brought to their attention) they deliberately ignore it. These are the establishments of activist environmental groups! In toto, these groups raise hundreds of millions of dollars a year in contributions for their environmental causes, and they do do much good work. However, apparently they are very threatened by the possibility that their leadership in protecting the environment will be upstaged by a radically different solution for environmental ills, which they know little if anything about and which they have not championed. Also holding them back, there is a strong anti-technology sentiment among these groups—quite a Luddite streak. Real technological solutions are not their cup of tea. So they proclaim that the solution to the world’s ills is, amazingly — hydrogen! Only when they talk about hydrogen they insist that solar power and wind power will be required to generate this hydrogen from water— never is there the merest mention of the possibility of cold fusion or other New Hydrogen Physics Energy solutions, which they most certainly have heard about. It might be argued that these environmentalists have just absorbed the physics establishment’s verdict on New Energy, but we think that is not a credible hypothesis. They are so anti-establishment to begin with, the problem lies somewhere else: their arrogant need be in charge so that they can continue to play to the political and financial parties that support them. It may be that some of these groups will have a change of heart and will some day do what they should have been doing for over a decade— support New Energy, or talk about it at least as one possibility! But we are not holding our breath. When cold fusion was announced on March 23, 1989, within days or weeks— before there was any way to know one way or the other whether the cold fusion claims would hold up— we had these prominent environmental figures say these absurd things about cold fusion (again, this was in 1989): Jeremy Rifkin, “The fusion findings are the worst news that ever happened. Right when we are beginning to develop a global awareness of the problems of global society, here come some scientists saying we don’t have to deal with these problems.” Amory Lovins, “Most of the costs of fusion will be in the stuff you wrap around it to get electricity, from the turbine, to the plant site, to the health physicists and other clean up services you need, all of which will make it at least as expensive as fission. The right place for a fusion reactor is where we have one—in the Sun, 93 million miles away.” Today these propagandists promote the environmentalists “hydrogen economy”— while failing to mention that there may be or are energy sources far more appropriate to solving the world’s environmental ills. In truth, these activists do not really want to solve these problems. They want to be in the public eye talking about them and collecting money for them. They crave — and they get— the adoration of the mainstream press. [Back to Top]

Answers to Questions on New Hydrogen Physics Energy Note: A Summary of Where the Field Stood in Early 2000So as not to unnecessarily repeat ourselves, please realize that many questions about New Hydrogen Physics Energy are answered in Dr. Eugene Mallove’s 8,500-word Memorandum to the White House(“The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age.”) Please read it. That memorandum was requested by the Clinton White House in early 2000, thanks to the prompting of our supporter, Sir Arthur C. Clarke. Unfortunately, nothing was done about it by the previous Administration, and nothing has been done about it by the present Bush Administration, to which the identical Memorandum was re-submitted. None of this is surprising to us any longer. The abdication of scientific and environmental responsibility by Federal officials in the matter of cold fusion is appalling and unconscionable. Note well: The Memorandum asked for no Federal funding for research in this area. It simply asked for one thing: “Mr. President, you need do only one thing now: Publicly state that you are going to investigate this matter and then do it.” Even this very simple action has not been taken.What is “cold fusion”? The collection of phenomena that has come to be called “cold fusion” was discovered by professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in the mid-1980s, who used their own money (about $100,000) to perform the electrochemical experiments that led to their announcement at a press conference on March 23, 1989 at the University of Utah. One of the most intense controversies in the history of science erupted almost immediately. The phenomena reported by chemists Fleischmann and Pons defied then current understandings of how nuclear reactions could occur—they were never thought to be able to happen under such mild, modest temperature conditions (with the exception of radioactive decay). In a small, vacuum-insulated glass cell they had electrically split heavy hydrogen (deuterium) from oxygen in the molecules of a heavy-water solution. The heavy hydrogen was compressed into a palladium metal electrode, after which the cold fusion effects emerged after days and weeks of careful measurement. The reaction products in “cold fusion” were not present in the expected amounts for normal high-temperature plasma fusion (hot fusion at millions of degrees, such as in the cores of stars). Even if such novel reactions were agreed to be occurring at all, that they were not producing intense neutron or gamma radiation (The very fact that Fleischmann and Pons were still alive!) caused great consternation and paradigm paralysis in members of the scientific establishment. This was especially the case for those who were working on the multi-billion dollar program in thermonuclear fusion. The funding for hot fusion— always shaky anyway— was instantly threatened by the potential shifting of funding away from hot fusion, to the then unresolved question of “cold fusion.” Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions” (LENR) is now more generically applied to the host of reactions that occur within and/or on the surface of certain metals when in contact with forms of hydrogen—such as hydrogen gas, or water, which of course contains hydrogen—and when triggered under special conditions. LENR reactions produce excess heat (much more heat out than can be accounted for by ordinary chemical reactions), helium, sometimes tritium (a radioactive isotope of hydrogen), low levels of neutrons, charged particles, gamma rays, and even transmutations in heavy metals in the LENR devices. In some experiments parts of the host metal has been significantly transmuted into other elements—it is as though “alchemy” has risen from the grave of scientific history! From our perspective in examining the overwhelming evidence for low-energy transmutation of elements in “cold fusion” reactions, it most certainly has! LENR reactions have been seen with palladium, titanium, nickel, platinum, gold, other metals, and with some ceramic materials. [Back to Top]What sources of information can I access about cold fusion?Infinite Energy Magazine and its website is one good resource for continuing coverage of the field. The magazine has been in publication since March 1995. It is a technical magazine with editorial outreach to the general public as well.To maintain the highest editorial standards, it is written and edited by scientists, engineers, and expert journalists. It is aimed at pioneering scientists, engineers, industrialists, environmentalists, and investors who are concerned about an exciting R&D area that we believe will change the world dramatically. Infinite Energy is circulated around the world to over 40 countries. And, Infinite Energy is distributed to newsstands in the U.S. and Canada. Download a Complimentary Selection of Past Articles from Infinite Energy Magazine (7MB .pdf file):

Two primary websites that focus specifically on cold fusion/LENR should be consulted:http://www.lenr-canr.orghttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.htmlThe website of BlackLight Power Corporation (www.blacklightpower.com) does not like to advertise that the company’s highly reproducible New Energy generating processes from hydrogen bear a strong connection to cold fusion/LENR phenomena. But any serious investigation of cold fusion/LENR should not overlook this remarkable work.Some books accessible to the general reader, which give appropriate discussion of the history and science of cold fusion:Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove (1991, John Wiley and Sons)Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion by Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno (1999, Infinite Energy Press)Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed by Charles Beaudette (2000, Oak Grove Press)Books giving inappropriate, highly negatively biased views, which ignore almost all of the experimental evidence: Too Hot to Handle (Frank Close, 1991); Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century (John Huizenga, 1992); Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (Gary Taubes, 1993)An excellent video documentary made in 1999 (VHS tape, 70 minutes), “Cold Fusion: Fire from Water” [Back to Top]What is excess heat? Many chemical and nuclear processes are “exothermic,” meaning they produce more energy out than is input. For example, when you strike a match, it burns until the fuel is exhausted, producing energy—small energy in (from the striking motion), large energy out. Some LENR devices produce energy the way a burning match does: no energy is input after an initiation trigger, but a steady stream of heat is produced. Other LENR devices require an external source of electrical energy, or ultrasonic sound energy, to keep the reaction going. The electrical or other energy input into the system produces some heat, and the LENR reaction produces additional or “excess” heat. For example, with electrochemical cold fusion you might input 1 watt of power and get out 3 watts, so 2 watts are excess. Some electrochemical LENR systems get much better performance than this; input is a fraction of a watt and output is up to a kilowatt or more for a time. More commonly, LENR performance has not been nearly that good. The conditions that produce such excellent performance have not been easy to pin down— if they had been, the cold fusion controversy would have been over long ago! [Back to Top]Is cold fusion chemical, nuclear, or something else? Cold fusion (LENR) cannot be a simple chemical process, because it consumes no ordinary chemical fuel and it produces no chemical ash—nuclear products are observed. Many LENR cells contain mostly water, which is inert material that cannot burn or undergo any other exothermic chemical reaction. Cells also contain metal hydrides, which can produce a small amount of chemical heat, but cold fusion cells have produced thousands to millions of times more energy per unit of mass than any chemical cell could. For example, a cell containing 40 milligrams (0.04 grams) of metal hydride, and no other potential chemical fuel, produced 86 megajoules of energy over a two month period. The best conventional chemical fuel is gasoline; only a few exotic rocket fuels produce more energy per gram than gasoline, and they are not much better. It would take 2,000 grams of gasoline to produce 86 megajoules of energy, so the cold fusion cell was 50,000 times better. Furthermore, no cold fusion cell has ever shown any sign of terminating its output for lack of fuel. The cell that produced 86 megajoules was deliberately turned off after two months. If it has been left on, it might have run for years, or decades. Nobody knows how long it might have run. There is some indication that in some LENR systems the reaction is catalytic— in other words, the metal responsible for the reaction is not necessarily consumed; it just facilitates the nuclear reaction like a chemical or biological catalyst or enzyme.Cold fusion does produce nuclear ash: helium, a low level of neutrons, and in some cases tritium, other low-level radiations, and transmutations in the host metal. It produces trillions of times fewer neutrons than plasma fusion or conventional nuclear fission, and most scientists believe that nothing resembling hot plasma fusion can take place in or on a metal lattice. So if cold fusion is a nuclear fusion or fission reaction (or perhaps it embodies aspects of both fission and fusion), it must be very different than any previously known nuclear reaction. It is not yet clear whether the helium, tritium, and other nuclear ash from all LENR reactions is sufficient to account for all of the heat generated. But at least in some LENR experiments, excellent correlation has been measured—e.g. just as much helium is produced for the excess heat measured as would be expected in the equivalent hot fusion reaction that yields not heat but deadly gamma rays. If LENR is not strictly a nuclear process, then perhaps this is a new source of energy never before observed, which occasionally produces nuclear reactions as side effects. Some theorists who have examined LENR phenomena have this viewpoint, though the “mainstream cold fusion” view is that LENR reactions are all strictly nuclear-based, just not yet fully understood.If cold fusion cells are at least in part nuclear, why aren’t they extremely hot? Many people think that because nuclear reactions can produce gigantic amounts of energy— such as in exploding thermonuclear weapons— that means nuclear reactions must be very hot, like the inside of the Sun. This is incorrect. An impure sample of radium that is radioactively decaying, or some uranium compound that is undergoing fission of its uranium atoms might be cold to the touch, or barely warm—depending on the conditions. These samples can produce dangerous ionizing radiation. The individual radioactive decays of atoms or fission reactions that occur atom-by-atom inside these materials produce millions of electron volts (eV) of energy release, whereas the atoms in a chemical reaction releases only a few to 10 electron volts at most. But atoms undergoing conventional nuclear reactions in the impure sample are few and far between, whereas trillions of atoms in the chemical sample simultaneously participate in the chemical reaction. That’s why a simple match can be very hot at its tip when it ignites. Although a nuclear reaction produces millions of times more energy than a chemical reaction, in some cases the chemical reaction produces much more power over a short period of time. This is why a burning match is hotter than the impure sample of radium. The radium remains warm for thousands of years, the match burns out in a minute or two.What is the difference between power and energy? What are watts, joules, kilowatt-hours, and BTUs?These may not be our most “Frequently Asked Questions,” but they ought to be, because power and energy are Frequently Confused Concepts. Power is the rate of energy release at a given instant in time—how much energy is released per unit time at that instant. Energy is power integrated— added up—over time. Power is measured in watts, kilowatts, and horsepower. Energy is measured in joules (watt-seconds) or kilowatt-hours. A power level of 1 watt that continues for 1 second equals 1 joule— because 1 watt is 1 joule per second. The integrated energy from a 100-watt light that runs for 60 seconds equals 6,000 joules. A good fact to keep on file: 4.18 joules equal 1 calorie, which is enough energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.In U.S. industry, thermal energy is sometimes measured in BTUs (British Thermal Units). A BTU is the energy it takes to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. One BTU equals 1,055 joules. One horsepower equals 746 watts. [Back to Top]Why doesn't cold fusion produce dangerous ionizing radiation and neutrons? Nobody knows for certain why the primary signature of cold fusion is excess heat, not deadly radiation. Nevertheless, many LENR theorists have put forth very intriguing proposals for the mechanism of these reactions. There are, in fact, many dozens of competing theories—a smaller number of which are very well fleshed out. The exact nature of the LENR reactions is one of the many unsolved scientific mysteries surrounding them. Some scientists think that because the effect does not produce intense radiation, it cannot be a nuclear process. Others say the energy is produced, but then somehow absorbed by the metal lattice— as high frequency vibrations. In any case, it is a good thing that LENR does not produce dangerous ionizing radiation because if it did, LENR cells would require elaborate shielding and LENR would be difficult, expensive, and dangerous to commercialize. From a scientific perspective, the lack of radiation and neutrons is puzzling, but from the point of view of business, commercialization, and the environment, this is a priceless advantage. This is not to say that there are not nuclear hazards associated with LENR reactions! There are nuclear reactions occurring where they have previously not been observed; thus it is possible to imagine LENR research leading to new kinds of reactions that could be employed in weapons— perhaps small, “clean” versions of previously implemented conventional nuclear weapons. But so far, there does not appear to be a simple route to this deadly application. No LENR reaction being discussed openly seems to have even a tiny hint of a “runaway” characteristic that could release large quantities of energy in a short time— the requirement to make a bomb. [Back to Top]What is “hot” fusion (conventional, plasma fusion)? Hot fusion is the kind of nuclear reaction that powers the Sun and the stars—it is also the reaction used in thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs). At temperatures of tens to hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius (or Kelvin), the nuclei of hydrogen atoms can get close enough together, frequently enough, such that the nuclear force between some of the close-approaching nuclei has a chance to overcome the natural tendency of the positively charged nuclei to repel one another. The nuclei then join or fuse to form helium nuclei. This releases enormous energy. Fusion of light elements to form heavier elements (e.g. hydrogen fusing to helium) is the opposite of fission, which is the release of energy by splitting heavy uranium or plutonium nuclei. [Back to Top]What is the present status of controlled “hot” fusion? Scientists the world over have spent more than five decades and billions of dollars (an estimated $17 billion in the U.S. alone) to investigate the possibility of mimicking with devices here on Earth the fusion reactions of the stars. These are complex and large machines that rely on high magnetic fields or powerful lasers to compress and heat fusion fuel, typically the isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium. The output of these hot fusion reactors is deadly neutron radiation, which must first be converted to heat in molten metal flowing around the core of the reactor. This heat must then be used to make steam to generate electricity. The process is fraught with exceedingly difficult engineering problems, and at best it would become another kind of power generation that leaves much radioactive waste in irradiated components. The controlled hot fusion program has made enormous strides since the 1950s when it began, but unlike cold fusion it is far below what is called healthy “breakeven” in its energy balance—much more energy output than input, but all agree that the earliest possible time when “practical” hot fusion devices (still the size of an athletic stadium) might be available is at least three decades away. Moreover, the success of hot fusion always seems to be “just 20 to 30 years away.” This has led to the very appropriate joke, “Hot fusion is the energy of the future— and always will be!” Hot fusion is a very tough engineering problem. Many engineers— even those favorable to hot fusion— suggest that the ”tokamak” reactor approach (magnetic confinement fusion) or the giant laser approach (inertial confinement approach) being followed by the U.S. Department of Energy will never result in commercially viable technology.The U.S. hot fusion scientists, and their colleagues in other countries, continue to want to build a gigantic, complex test reactor called ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), which might begin to operate in another decade. A commercial hot fusion power plant would not be on-line until at least 2040. The annual budget for hot fusion research in the U.S. regularly exceeds $500 million, and the program now seeks increased funding, which Congress previously killed, for ITER and other large-scale experiments. [Back to Top]How does cold fusion differ from hot fusion? Cold fusion releases enormous quantities of energy in the form of heat, not ionizing radiation, as in hot fusion. This heat energy is thousands to millions of times what ordinary chemical reactions could possibly yield. If “cold fusion” is a heretofore unknown form of benign nuclear reaction—as most researchers in the cold fusion field believe—there is more potential cold fusion energy in a cubic kilometer of sea water than in all of the known oil reserves on Earth. In one gallon of ordinary water, there is at least the energy equivalent of 300 gallons of gasoline! Cold fusion, in contrast to hot fusion, occurs in relatively simple apparatus. Cold fusion/LENR reactions are not at all like conventional hot fusion reactions. If they were, cold fusion experimenters would be killed by massive flows of radiation —neutrons and gamma rays. [Back to Top]Are there theories that can explain cold fusion? Cold fusion researchers have attempted to find theoretical models to explain the observed cold fusion effects: large thermal energy releases, low-level nuclear phenomena, and the absence of massive harmful radiation and other conventional nuclear effects. There is yet no single, generally accepted theory that explains all these phenomena. There is no doubt, however, that the phenomena exist and will eventually be explained. It is difficult to come up with a single theory that fits all the data. The explanation might lie in nuclear reactions, in part in exotic “super-chemistry” requiring major modifications to quantum mechanics, or something even more peculiar (such as tapping of the so-called “zero-point energy” at the sub-atomic level, or the involvement of what others call vacuum or aether energy). [Back to Top]Is there a future for cold fusion? Unfortunately, cold fusion has been widely attacked, belittled, and ignored in the U.S. and most of Europe, except Italy. Funding for research in the U.S. is very scarce. A few privately funded U.S. scientists are working on it, and “underground” research continues at many laboratories. Fortunately, cold fusion research is not Big Science. It does not need massive installations, just relatively small-scale, dedicated work. Cold fusion energy development will dominantly be the territory for private industry. There is no need for massive government investment.Probably the most difficult hurdle in trying to come to terms with cold fusion is that it seems too fantastic, “too good to be true” economically and socially, and too unexpected scientifically. But the same was said about many other scientific revolutions, like anesthetics, electric lighting, airplanes, antibiotics, space flight, and nuclear fission. Cold fusion and allied discoveries will probably revolutionize the world in ways we can barely begin to imagine. People who think that such revolutionary changes cannot happen have forgotten the lessons of history. We should remember the sentiments of Michael Faraday, to whom we owe our revolutionary electrically powered civilization. He wrote: “Nothing is too wonderful to be true.” [Back to Top]Are there technologies other than cold fusion/LENR that could release energy from water?Yes. Many of these are covered in back issues of Infinite Energy, but let us categorize the prominent ones here (not an exhaustive list):• Catalyzed hydrogen shrinkage reactions — based on the hydrino physics of Dr. Randell Mills of BlackLight Power Corp.• Water arc discharges— excess energy releases. By Dr. Peter and Neal Graneau• Excess energy from turbulent cavitation excitation of water, e.g. The HydroSonic PumpTM of HydroDynamics, Inc. of Rome, Georgia (USA) • Carbon arc discharges under water, which produce an excess energy phenomenon. Variously called: CarboHydrogenTM Gas or AquaFuel [Back to Top]Answers to Questions on Vacuum EnergyWhat is “vacuum energy”?The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) taught that a vacuum could not exist in nature. This led for centuries to the often repeated, incorrect phrase, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” This mis-information persisted for two millennia, until the German physicist Otto von Guericke (1682-1686) showed with a dramatic experiment in 1657 that a vacuum—a space devoid of air—could actually be made by pumping the air out. But the question remained, “What, if anything, ‘fills’ that region of no air once it is formed?” Is it a zone of “nothing”? Physicists dealing with basic questions, such as “What is heat?”; “What is light?”; and “What is combustion?”, invented various invisible, massless “fluids” that could be infiltrating matter and the space between hypothetical atoms—and which could also be present in the presumed airless space among planets and stars. In fact, all physicists toward the end of the 19th century were convinced that an invisible ether (alternate spelling, aether) was some kind of a stiff, static, pervading medium that allowed waves of light and other “electromagnetic” waves to vibrate through it. But this aether, they believed, had to have the property of not offering resistance to the motion of celestial bodies—otherwise these would gradually change their orbits from the medium’s presence as an energy-draining obstruction.Early in the 20th century, the aether question became sidetracked by the theory of Special Relativity (1905) promoted by Albert Einstein, which came into prominence under peculiar circumstances around 1919. Relativity supposedly dispensed with the need for an aether in which electromagnetic waves would vibrate. (See Infinite Energy, Issues #38 and #39, special “Einstein Reconsidered” issues). Since the ascendancy of Einstein’s relativity theory, the idea of an aether with properties that would allow such “transverse vibrations” has seemed superfluous, so the ether was totally abandoned as an archaic, wrong concept by the physics establishment. The space vacuum is said to be mathematically described as a four-dimensional “space-time” plenum, i.e. there is no space per se and no time per se individually, only “space-time.” As with the premature dismissal of “cold fusion” in 1989, this proved to be a disastrous mistake by the scientific establishment—though it most certainly does not acknowledge that fact— not yet.At the same time, the scientific establishment — and many of those who oppose its rejection of “free energy” claims for this or that device— has come up with a new host of properties of the vacuum. In the theory of quantum mechanics, the vacuum is said to pulsate with a kind of “electromagnetic foam” at a scale far below the size of atoms — this is called “zero point energy” or “ZPE.” Some of those who suggest that there have been and are today various “free energy” devices that look like they are running on “no fuel,” suggest that the ZPE is being tapped for energy. Encouraging this view are some prominent mainstream physicists’ assertions that the energy density of this ZPE is huge, on the order of 1094 grams per cubic centimeter of vacuum! (Strangely, the mainstream almost never suggests that this energy might be tapped technologically— it’s just fun for the textbooks.)Simultaneously, modern cosmologists who accept Einstein’s relativity theories (virtually all of them) have invented all manner of concepts to explain puzzling observations about the vacuum of the universe. They say that filling the universe is invisible “dark matter,” “dark energy,” and “quintessence”— and they cite supposed evidence for this from astronomical observations. They have concocted all manner of mathematical vibrating “string theories” to explain all of creation— all of particles, all of everything. In fact, they talk about a “Theory of Everything” being nearly complete—“just around the corner.” However, this appears to be a cosmic joke on modern physicists, much as perfect circle “epicycles” to describe planetary motions were a joke on astronomers who worked before the 17th century. These Theory-of-Everything physicists have apparently not learned the most basic foundation of “Science 101”: Experiments are paramount! Experiments contradicting the most elegant and seemingly correct theory must be taken very, very seriously. Theories must be thrown out and modified if experimental evidence contradicts the accepted theory. This is not happening in modern physics. It turns out, that aside from the ZPE theories, which would seem to allow the extraction of energy from the vacuum— even by the mainstream physicists’ own quantum mechanical theory, there are straightforward measurements that can be performed in laboratories that appear to show incontrovertible evidence of a host of other aether properties that have all along been right under our very noses. The measurements have been ignored, of course, as is the case when paradigm paralysis dominates. Please consult the references cited below, and learn about this astonishing turn of events. [Back to Top]What sources of information can I access that deal with vacuum energy?We reviewed some of these sources in answers to “General Questions,” but let us repeat the information here in condensed form:• An excellent research compendium on the Zero Point Energy viewpoint about vacuum energy is the book by Moray B. King, Quest for Zero-Point Energy: Engineering Principles for “Free Energy” (2001) [view the catalog].• Both Nikola Tesla and Wilhelm Reich had remarkably accurate things to say about a dynamic ether (or aether), the static “luminiferous ether” form of which was rejected by 20th Century physics as a carrier of light waves, following the ascendancy of Einstein’s relativity theories. Unfortunately, because of major theoretical errors that have entered modern physics and pervade it, an energetic, dynamic ether with properties measurable in the laboratory was overlooked. The work of Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa of Canada (www.aetherometry.com and www.aethera.org) has built on and apparently has validated the stream of aether physics work that was begun by Tesla and Reich.• Tom Bearden’s book, Energy from the Vacuum, appeared in 2002 and may be ordered from (www.cheniere.org).• Robert L. Forward, “Extracting energy from the vacuum by cohesion of charge foliated conductors,” Physical Review B, Vol.30, No.4, pp.1700-2.• Kenneth R. Shoulders, whose well-known, patented “high density charge cluster” science and technology has impressed a host of investigators, has a key patent (and others) that should be consulted: U.S. #5,018,180, “Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density.” [Back to Top]Who were some of the historical scientists and inventors who have dealt with vacuum energy?There are dozens of people who have claimed to have produced devices that on first appearance seem to violate conservation of energy (the First Law of Thermodynamics), but which the various theories of vacuum energy suggest are actually being “fueled” by an energetic medium. Some of these devices may have been improperly measured by the inventors and their associates, leading to incorrect conclusions that energy was being tapped from the vacuum. Other figures seemed to have been proceeding on a direct path to vacuum energy devices, from the experiments that they carried out. To name a handful of the more prominent, more frequently discussed inventors and scientists (but not to diminish others not mentioned): A. Deceased: Paul M. Brown, E. V. Gray, T. Henry Moray, Wilhelm Reich, Floyd Sweet, Nikola Tesla.B. Present: Robert Adams, Tom Bearden, John Bedini, Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Howard Johnson (magnetic motor), W. W. Hyde, Kenneth Shoulders, Paramahamsa Tewari.[Back to Top]What experimental devices exist today that embody vacuum energy? The two most prominent claimed technologies in vacuum energy today, and their presently achieved U.S. patents, are:• Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG) of Tom Bearden and his associates— 6,362,718 “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator” (3/26/02)• Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Reactor (PAGDTM) of Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa— 5,416,391 “Electrochemical Transduction of Plasma Pulses” (5/16/95)— 5,449,989 “Energy Conversion System” (5/12/95)— 5,502,354 “Direct Current Energized Pulsed Generator Utilizing Autogenous Cyclical Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharges” (3/26/96) [Back to Top]Is there a connection between technologically-derived vacuum energy and “Chi,” “Qi,” “Prana,” and other claims of “biophysical energies” or “subtle energies”? Yes, this is one of the most remarkable emerging conclusions that can be taken from the new energy field. In our view, a compelling case is building up that those technological devices that actually do tap vacuum energy, are also tapping a source of energy that is part and parcel of the functioning of all life. For centuries, various types of what are now in the West called “complementary medicine”—therapeutic healers, acupuncturists, Reiki therapists, and the like—have been used in Oriental cultures. This has now spread to the West and there are big battles being fought over these complementary medicine therapies. A large and growing percentage of patients now using Western medicine also employ Eastern practices. These multi-mode medicine users are, by and large from the assessments of some studies, expressing great satisfaction. These therapies (other than acknowledged “placebo effect” aspects) would seem to have no basis for their functioning, if biological systems such as the human body were exclusively biochemical and neurological systems with no interspersed and surrounding biophysically active medium—aether, “orgone,” etc. However, the line of work begun in the 20th Century by Wilhelm Reich and others in the West is converging to provide physics-based explanations of the “aetheric body” model of living organisms that is operating in conjunction with conventionally understood biochemical processes. See, in particular, the scientific monograph, “Fundamental Measurement of Biological Energies-I,” downloadable from www.aetherometry.com, monograph AS2-28. There appears to be much more to the electrical and energy properties of organisms than can be accounted for by the limited models of mainstream physics. [Back to Top]Is there any mainstream research that substantiates “biophysical energy”?There are significant controlled studies that substantiate the effectiveness of complementary medicine modalities, such as acupuncture. However, we are increasingly seeing Western medicine’s technological imaging and sensing devices being applied to prove that bodily effects without conventional biological explanation are occurring. To cite one of the best examples we have encountered, please read: “Evaluation of Acupuncture Using fMRI and Ultrasonic Imaging,” by Chang Sok So (Dept. of Anatomy and Neurobiology), Joie P, Jones & David D. Kidney (Department of Radiological Sciences), University of California at Irvine; Takuso Saito, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol.95, 1998, pp.2670-2673. In this study, it is conclusively shown with scientifically blinded examination using ultrasonic and other stimulation of an acupuncture point in the foot of a subject (many subjects were used): 1. The acupuncture point on the foot, known by acupuncturists to help vision when stimulated, resulted in nearly instantaneous production of activation in the visual cortex of the brain of the subject —a completely reproducible effect that could be toggled off and on; 2. The acupuncture point was found to be highly localized (within a fraction of a millimeter); and 3. The speed of transmission of the information from the foot acupuncture point to the visual cortex of the brain, as measured by fMRI, was at least 1,000 times any known nerve transmission speed! Dr. Joie P. Jones explained, at a public lecture in June 2001 (Society for Scientific exploration Meeting, LaJolla, CA), that because the functional MRI (fMRI) minimum time localization of measurement is about 80-microseconds, the actual transmission speed to the brain might be faster than even this astounding 1,000-fold figure. A footnote, which illuminates the sad state of mainstream science today: The group’s technical paper, which is obviously of overarching importance, was submitted to Nature magazine, which rejected it without review— according to Dr. Joie Jones. Subsequently, five sympathetic Nobel laureates in the biological sciences, who were impressed with the paper, urged Nature to reconsider its decision. It did not. Therefore, the paper had to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which does not censor the work of its participants. Thus, a fundamental finding about the human body’s functioning, and the medical effectiveness of a disparaged technique— acupuncture— has been submerged, at least for now. [Back to Top]